I think this is a super simplistic view. You're basically saying: Bad decisions leads to being poor. Not a single person is under the impression that all poo

I think this is a super simplistic view. You're basically saying: Bad decisions leads to being poor. Not a single person is under the impression that all poor people made good decisions. Of course there is a causal relationship! But it's much more complicated than that. Some people are poor because they were born physically disabled, or mentally disabled. Some people got sick and lost their job and savings. Some people are poor because they're taking care of loved ones. Not all women choose to be single mothers. And many people living in poverty have jobs. The causal arrow also goes in both directions. Does a poor man on the street, with no shower, no transportation, no cell phone, and barely enough money in his pocket to eat, really have the ability to seek work? Does a poor man on the street have any reason to worry about the problems of substance abuse? Does a poor man on the street worry about going to jail for a while? I'm not even sure what you're suggesting though. It sounds like you're suggesting that we should continue shaming poor people as an effective means to prevent poverty. You don't think absolute desperation and lack of safety, security, health, and food, is enough of a motivation? You think shaming works? I don't get it. None of these ideas even matter though. With basic income, what matters is the end result for a society. Maybe life isn't just better for the poor people, but maybe it's better for you too. Maybe more poor people end up being functional members of society. Maybe you end up safer, healthier and happier in a society with basic income. Maybe people still want to work. Maybe there are more entrepreneurs. Maybe a basic income system is necessary for our society to function in the future. There are a lot of indications that this is the case. This is why we need to do basic income studies.